Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rival Sons


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Rival Sons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to fail WP:BAND for the most part. Sources are almost all crappy blogs. Their records are self-released or by minor labels (infobox says Warner, but I don't see that in the article.) And we have some stupid long-running edit war that has now reached the drama boards. Not worth the community's time, so let's delete and salt this to end the drama. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. This decision strongly seems rash and unwarranted for the many citations clearly provided. There are multiple different notable sources, quotes and references. The “crappy blogs” you refer to are from Rival Sons notable record label at the time of the information used in citation. This action strongly seems, rushed and unrealistic for such a well known, notable band with many notable and significant relationships clearly referenced and stated. I disagree strongly with this nomination. Sirsentence (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  03:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California -related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  03:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * query and comment " from Rival Sons notable record label"? Then they are not WP:IS and are valueless in establishing notability or verifiability, ergo "crappy".-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination appears to be judging the subject based solely on the article, and with flawed logic - several of the sources cited are not 'crappy blogs'. Four albums on Earache Records gives the band an easy pass of WP:NMUSIC criterion 5. They have had three albums on the UK Albums Chart, and two on the Billboard 200 and well as placings on other Billboard charts (e.g. ), easily satisfying criterion 2. Whatever sources are cited in the article, plenty of coverage exists in reliable sources, e.g. NME: , MOJO: , Rolling Stone: , Allmusic: , , , , , The Independent: , , The Quietus: , The Guardian: , the BBC: , , American Songwriter: , Classic Rock: , Guitar Player: , GQ: , Phoenix New Times: , The Northern Echo: , as well as further coverage unavailable online in publications such as Kerrang!, easily satisfying criterion 1 of WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article probably should have been tagged for copy edit/cleanup and/or sourcing issues rather than a nom for deletion, but since we're here, let's see what the community consensus is. - Planet Rock, CBS News, The Telegraph, Loudwire, couple of reviews from BBC - Review, Review 2, Vid Clip Fox News, Book - Live and Recorded: Music Experience in the Digital Millennium ISBN 978-3-319-70367-1, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Isaidnoway (talk)  09:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - The artist clearly meets meets WP:BAND on the basis of its slot as the opener of Black Sabbath's farewell tour alone.  There really isn't any drama involved here other than one editor's complete inability to understand what constitutes an associated act.  I agree that the article needs some major work, but it is already a major improvement over what it was just 6 months ago, which was just a promo page for the band that only cited sources to the band's own website.  Mystic Technocrat (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: I wouldn't say that opening for Black Sabbath automatically makes a band notable, but they clearly pass WP:BAND anyway... multiple charting albums in multiple countries across the US and Europe, and multiple instances of coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated by the editors above. Richard3120 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There is more coverage here than "crappy blogs". There's a lot of coverage not from crappy blogs to sift. If the multi charts are cited to IS, and if the not IS are merely used to flesh out details rather than establish notability, then . . . -- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as per other commentary above this is notable as there is enough references. Just needs an improvement notice not a delete User:davidstewartharvey(talk 19:50 25 October 2018
 * Keep While I may understand the desire to end this silly edit war by killing the article with fire, these guys appear to be a pretty notable band. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well here's a new thing-- AfD is not dispute resolution-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well this is going nowhere. Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.